How much BHP/Torque from a 2.5L on 95Ron?
06 October 2006, 06:50 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: devon
Posts: 2,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy.F
If any of you guys in the South want to pop in when you're passing, I'll show you my 936bhp graphs 
didn't know you had your own rolling road
06 October 2006, 07:27 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds - It was 562.4bhp@28psi on Optimax, How much closer to 600 with race fuel and a bigger turbo?
Posts: 15,239
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"big figures"
Dazza, doesnt need his own rolling road to get figures..
LOL @ comparing figures to steve's engine.. I would like to see how the graphs compare for a given spec should be very interesting, but thats another thread.
gotta dash, cant speculate in this thread!
07 October 2006, 02:46 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
you inferred that by mapping for fuel economy I was not mapping for power. I was merely pointing out that they are not mutually exclusive, and you'de jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Of course I'm not implying that the car was as quick as David's. It was quick enough for its intended application: a runabout with decent fuel economy running on cheap fuel but with a bit of go when needed... the GPS certainly seemed to support that conclusion, recording a maximum speed of 180MPH
Does that qualify as being "quick" ?
Regarding graphs you are interested in, I'll try to grab them when I have a moment. I have no problem with publishing them, they're not exactly secret now are they ? Not sure why you might think that I am sceptical of your results ? Unless you're gonna say you used a TD05H/20G to get those figures of course 
Cheers,
Pat.
you inferred that by mapping for fuel economy I was not mapping for power. I was merely pointing out that they are not mutually exclusive, and you'de jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Of course I'm not implying that the car was as quick as David's. It was quick enough for its intended application: a runabout with decent fuel economy running on cheap fuel but with a bit of go when needed... the GPS certainly seemed to support that conclusion, recording a maximum speed of 180MPH
Does that qualify as being "quick" ?Regarding graphs you are interested in, I'll try to grab them when I have a moment. I have no problem with publishing them, they're not exactly secret now are they ?
Not sure why you might think that I am sceptical of your results ? Unless you're gonna say you used a TD05H/20G to get those figures of course Cheers,
Pat.
07 October 2006, 08:59 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David_Wallis
Never said big figures.
So you "meant" the same thing though, with figures, the higher the more impressive (more so when comparing like for like), and as Pat keeps alluding to the fact that it WAS in fact a power map, what "very impressive" figures did you end up with then Pat?
Mike.
Last edited by Mike Tuckwood; 07 October 2006 at 09:10 AM.
07 October 2006, 09:07 AM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pat
Unless you're gonna say you used a TD05H/20G to get those figures of course
Nah, hardly....... (T3 50trim).
I don't REALLY need you to bring anything down TBH Pat (and I'm sure you knew that anyway), you're as welcome to simply stop in for a coffee and a chat, just as you've been for the last 7+ years we've known each other.
Mike.
07 October 2006, 08:27 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
As stated previously, I do not know what figures the car was running, I never considered it important enough to strap it onto a dyno and find out. I would also like to emphasise the fact that I only posted a clarification following David's comment (which merely stated that there had been other powerful 2.5 litre 95 RON burners and cited mine as an example). The clarification was with regard to the choice of fuel, not the actual engine's performance.... most people would probably wonder why, if you're going to the trouble and expense of building a strong 2.5 litre, you would opt not to use decent fuel to get the best out of it... would it be fair to say that if your customer could actually get better-than-95-RON fuel then he wouldn't have opted to run 95 anyway ? Perhaps you can appreciate the difference
Cheers,
Pat.
As stated previously, I do not know what figures the car was running, I never considered it important enough to strap it onto a dyno and find out. I would also like to emphasise the fact that I only posted a clarification following David's comment (which merely stated that there had been other powerful 2.5 litre 95 RON burners and cited mine as an example). The clarification was with regard to the choice of fuel, not the actual engine's performance.... most people would probably wonder why, if you're going to the trouble and expense of building a strong 2.5 litre, you would opt not to use decent fuel to get the best out of it... would it be fair to say that if your customer could actually get better-than-95-RON fuel then he wouldn't have opted to run 95 anyway ? Perhaps you can appreciate the difference
Cheers,
Pat.
07 October 2006, 08:46 PM
#70
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: @Junc 12, M40 Warwicksh; 01926 614522 CV33 9PL -Use 9GX for Satnav. South Mids Alcatek ECu dealer
Posts: 6,377
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy.F
If any of you guys in the South want to pop in when you're passing, I'll show you my 936bhp graphs
Andy you must have that upside down. Turn it up the, - OH BUGGER !! it reads the same both ways up
David APi
PSS it looked to me that his thread needed a bit of lightening up, Sorry !
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post